ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2024
Benchmarking and performance evaluation of a novel deformable image registration software for radiotherapy CT images.
Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative evaluation of VoxelMorpand conventional deformable image registration algorithms for thoracic 4D-CT in radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We evaluated and benchmarked a novel deformable image registration (DIR) software functionality (DirOne, Cosylab d.d., Ljubljana, Slovenia) by comparing it to two commercial systems, MIM and VelocityAI, following AAPM task group 132 (TG-132) guidelines. Methods: Three publicly available datasets were used for evaluation. The first dataset includes primary and deformed phantom images for a male pelvis. The second, from DIR-Lab, contains ten sets of 4D CT thoracic scans. The third dataset, from the DIR Evaluation Project (DIREP), includes ten head and neck CTs. VelocityAI and MIM served as benchmarks to assess DirOne's performance. Target registration error (TRE), dice similarity coefficient (DSC), and mean distance to agreement (MDA) were the evaluation metrics. Results: For TRE, the average results for DirOne, MIM, and VelocityAI were 3.3 ± 3.1 mm, 2.7 ± 3.7 mm, and 3.4 ± 2.4 mm, respectively. For DSC, DirOne achieved 0.96 ± 0.02, MIM 0.98 ± 0.02, and VelocityAI 0.98 ± 0.01 across the first and second datasets. In the DIREP dataset, DirOne achieved 0.73 ± 0.34 for MDA and 0.91 ± 0.03 for DSC; MIM achieved 0.54 ± 0.36 and 0.93 ± 0.02, and VelocityAI 0.93 ± 0.38 and 0.90 ± 0.03. Conclusion: The novel DIR software demonstrated clinically acceptable accuracy compared to other commercial systems, supporting its potential use in radiotherapy treatment planning applications such as automatic image segmentation, 4D segmentation propagation, and dose warping.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.